Historic preservation commissioners press to retain ‘40% rule’ as garage changes head to Planning Commission

At its regular meeting, the Webster Groves Historic Preservation Commission pressed city staff to preserve the local "40% rule" that limits the size and placement of front‑facing garages, and agreed to forward its recommendations to the Planning Commission for consideration on Feb. 2.

The push to retain the rule came after members warned that eliminating the zoning standard would remove the primary legal protection that currently helps preserve historic porches and neighborhood character. A member of the commission said, "front facing garage, that 40 so called 40% rule, that is the only zoning ordinance that protects the historic districts." The member argued that the rule, not just design guidelines, carries the force of law and that removing it could reduce porch sizes, remove street trees and increase paved front yards.

Joe Rodriguez, who identified himself during roll call, summarized staff feedback from earlier commission reviews: "The recommendation ... was they were in favor of maintaining the 40% rule in general," he said, while noting staff and several commissions suggested clarifying changes — for example, adding the side façade to the calculation and removing the ARB’s ability to grant variances that would allow a larger front entry garage.

Commission members said their aim is to ensure any change is preceded by careful analysis and public discussion. Staff told the commission the written proposal had not yet been filed with the Planning Department; one member said the matter is scheduled to go to the Planning Commission on Feb. 2. Members also emphasized that the city’s zoning and historic‑preservation responsibilities — including the city’s status as a certified local government — require the commission to convey the full rationale behind its position, not just a brief summary.

Several commissioners said concerns raised earlier — including claims that the 40% rule was applied inconsistently — did not match their experience. Staff and members noted that variance approvals were rare (about one project per year over the past 20 years) and that the variance process provides a remedy when a legitimate hardship exists.

The commission asked staff to package the commission’s detailed memo and findings for submission to the Planning Commission and City Council as the review moves forward. The Planning Commission review will include public hearings and additional opportunities for comment; any ordinance change would follow the city’s statutory process and associated waiting period.